Seven years ago, a mere a short phrase to electrify the party's annual gathering and to show Labour was becoming disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not exactly soaring oratory, the phrase met with rapturous applause as most of the hall rose in an impromptu ovation.
When the noise subsided, the then-Brexit spokesman, stood at the podium, blinking in surprise. He was unaccustomed to his speeches producing such a reaction. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". But context is everything.
In that darkly divisive time in 2018, straying from his agreed text in this way was always going to be seen as laying down the gauntlet to the party leader, who sought to prioritize leave supporters in working-class seats above the Europhile sentiments of his party. In just one speech, this seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary underwent a transformation – if only for a while – into a risk-taker who championed the party's base against a leader he later succeeded.
The Evolution of Stance & Settled Debates
In the years since, much has happened, especially for Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership from Corbyn in 2020 was to declare the Brexit issue was resolved by the previous year’s general election. During the most recent campaign, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” commitments that ruled out rejoining the European Union or its core structures.
Similar to Corbyn, his strategy has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in target constituencies, despite polling evidence indicates a significant number have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on the EU
However, it’s now Starmer is now to be an embattled party leader. While EU relations is no longer the central crisis in UK politics, the cap which was tightly sealed for five years is beginning to rattle once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up their language regarding the damage caused by Brexit has caused to Britain's economic standing. It’s a useful stick to criticize the Reform UK leader, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was his primary goal and is still his sole political accomplishment.
Nevertheless, the extent of the economic harm, which by some estimates has resulted in an economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the minor adjustments thus far implemented by ministers. The PM's much-touted re-set deal agreed with Brussels last summer provides gains measured in fractions of a percent.
Internal Pressure and Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is one of those trying to overcome entrenched Home Office resistance to an expansive version designed to boost growth program for young people by which young people can travel between Britain and Europe to study or work.
The deputy prime minister muses openly about the “self-evident” benefits of being in an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, such as the head of the Treasury select committee, recently supported an opposition proposal on joining one.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees EU policy, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, insists the red lines remain unchanged, there are ways these could be bypassed. One idea would be to announce the start of negotiations now on a much bolder deal, for inclusion in the next manifesto, with implementation only if securing a new electoral mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Scepticism
Yet, Starmer has lately been damping it all down again cautioning that a return to an EU customs arrangement could undermine the trade pacts with America, which he regards as key accomplishments of his premiership.
Reportedly that Starmer's doubts run even deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- First, he believes any customs union agreement has been made significantly more difficult because his ministers busily de-aligning from EU regulations across a range of policy areas, including the environment.
- Secondly, the exorbitant price set for the UK to join a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure of negotiations has convinced British officials that former EU partners are less interested in cutting special deals with Britain and are more focused on proving that Brexit does not work.
- Lastly, the new US national security strategy, praised by the Kremlin, is seen by key advisors in Number 10 as a reason for the UK to maintain distance from the EU.
An Alarming Strategy and Geopolitical Calculations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper asserts Europe faces cultural extinction due to immigration. It includes only one reference of the UK, found on a suggestion that the US government will intervene in British politics to encourage the rise of nationalist movements.
However, instead of deciding that this renders the US an unreliable partner, the government reportedly fear that aligning closer with Europe could upset the global balance by endangering fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Leadership Speculation and The Echo of 2018
All of which returns us to 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not a pitch to become leader but merely an attempt to keep open the “option” of remain being on the ballot paper. Indeed, back then, he still supported a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within Downing Street note that the Health Secretary, widely considered would be a candidate in any leadership election, is part of a group of senior ministers signaling they desire greater ambition regarding the EU.
Staff for the Deputy Prime Minister, another likely contender in a future race to replace Starmer, maintain she refuses to comment on her position regarding a customs pact because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Danger & A Prudent Memory
The danger is obvious. Should the PM reject significant moves towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to claim the territory where most of the party's supporters are to be found.
It would be wise of him to remember the effect just a few words had on his career in 2018. There are options for a big offer on Europe which the PM should not “rule out”; he should prise them open personally, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
